Same-sex Marriage Policy

There is a flurry of opinions and thoughts flying around about the policy clarifications regarding same-sex marriage and the children of gay parents living in a same-sex relationship.

I will only say that I am sorry for all the hurt that it causes. I am also glad the clarifications were made, and support them. The Lord is a merciful God. He is the only source we can turn to for comfort and understanding.

In time, all the wounds of mortality will be healed.

Even mine.

Even yours.

Abomination of Desolation and a Little Fig Tree

Before you try to read into what I'm about to say, and boil my words down to a "HATEZ TEH GAYZ," I'm going to fully admit that my words are about the legal ratification of gay relationships (vis a vis gay marriage) BUT that they are about much, much more than that. Most of you who read this will call me a bigot, insist that my opinions come from hatred, and soon (once you have power to do so) you will probably physically revile and attack me and my family.

So be it. I hope that when the time comes, I will be able to face it with courage and kindness.

For a long time, I have been fairly silent on the subject of gay marriage/civil unions. I probably will be again, once I've posted this. The only chance I had to vote on it so far, I voted to support gay marriage/civil unions. But my opinions have changed since then, and I become more sadly convinced of them as time goes on. My opinions haven't changed because of gay marriage, or gays, or aversion to homosexual attraction. They have changed because I've been taught of a much larger picture of the role of religious beliefs in a public sphere, and it is that larger picture I wish to address.

Female Ordination and the Church: Another Way

I am one who has struggled mightily with female roles in the Church and in eternity, yet I have a VERY hard time being sympathetic to Ordain Women as a movement. Most individuals who have aligned themselves with that group, I sympathize and even empathize with. I have gone to the mattresses on many of those same issues many times. I am not known for my reticence in speaking up.

There is nothing new about Ordain Women. They have organized together in direct, open, and unapologetic opposition to the Church. I'm not going to pick apart their claims to faithfulness and belief in priesthood authority while publicly opposing that authority. There is really no need, it's obvious enough. I also have no doubt that there are well-meaning people caught up in the smoke and mirrors. But I personally don't have a very long rope when it comes to that brand of deception, conscious or not. I'm all too well acquainted with it.

Detracting from Productive Conversations

This is exactly how I feel.

Public demonstrations and forceful activism are exactly contrary to the principles upon which the priesthood is built. How can they ever expect to wield the power of God when they so clearly don't understand even the most basic aspect of it?

Some People Oppose Gay Marriage

There is a point at which argument is futile. When two sides of a disagreement are so firmly rooted in their own perceptions, and those perceptions are coming from intrinsically different structures, there is not enough common ground for discussion.

This is, perhaps, why I haven’t really addressed the gay marriage battles going on in the United States of America since they started. I have listened to both sides, found fault and good with both, and made my conclusions. And most of the time, when I try to share why I believe the way I do, I only invite attack.

I do wish to state, perhaps for my own benefit alone, that I do not support gay marriage. I used to, before I started blogging. Getting involved in blogs certainly catalyzed some of my change of mind. I’m sure there are many out there who discount my opinions because they assume they are solely religiously based, or because they come from a place of ignorance and fear. I can protest as much as I like, but I’m not likely to change the minds of people so unapologetically closed-minded. I’m not even going to bother.

There is much I could say about gaining respect for differing moral stances. The arguments for gay marriage are generally based on the moral structure of secularism, the arguments against gay marriage are generally based on a moral structure espoused by many religions of the world. I believe that “separation of Church and State” in our country was never meant to restrict moral opinions from the public sphere. In fact, I believe that creating a space where individuals can act according to their morality in a public sphere without fear of losing employment, housing, physical safety, the ability to reasonably conduct business according to their conscience, and relative peace in their private lives was a core point of our government.

And, like it or not, the bulk of efforts to remove that freedom from fear is coming from those who think secularly. Many believe that individuals should have no right to exercise religiously-based morality in a public sphere, but ought to be forced to behave according to secular morality.

I would fight—have fought—equally hard to defend a gay person’s right to behave according to their beliefs in a public sphere as I now defend my own. I would shop at a store owned by a gay person. I'm as likely to design a gay friend's wedding invitations as those for a straight friend, were one to ask me. But I believe that the right to behave a certain way is not the same as a right to be publicly supported for it.

Determination of the lines of law—deciding what the public should pay for, support, and condone by law—should only be legally determined by a slow and cautious approach to lawmaking, including ALL the branches of government. Rushing headlong, deliberately bypassing checks and balances in the legal system, will inevitably reap consequences in unexpected directions.

I am afraid, watching the way law is happening now. And even if you support gay marriage, you should be afraid, too. The rate at which individual freedom to act according to personal moral conscience is being denied is frightening. When legal paths have been opened, they are very difficult to close. Almost overnight, changes are being made that alter the way people are allowed to live their lives. Though that may work in your favor today, there are no guarantees for tomorrow.

I do not know if my feelings on gay marriage will soon rob me of my ability to act according to my conscience in my employment. My line of work makes me one of those who could easily be forced to participate in things I find reprehensible. I wish, even if gay marriage wins wholesale, that those of religious moral conscience will be able to win a space for themselves. Not only to protect religious institutions, but to protect religious people.

Make no mistake. This war is not just about gay marriage. It is much more fundamental than that. It is a war between religion and secularism, a clash of whether or not people will be allowed to act according to a religious source of morality. Whether or not their votes will be taken away. Whether or not they can choose to conduct their business as they believe they should. Whether or not they are allowed to raise their children in the faith they hold dear. Whether or not they are allowed to speak their hearts, or must remain silent for fear of dire consequence.

There are many voices of empty reassurance, claiming that such things could never happen. But they are already happening. People claimed that welfare for single moms wouldn't result in more single moms, that loosening divorce laws wouldn't result in more divorces. They are blind to the lessons of history, and ignorant to human nature.

Some rights cannot be granted without robbing the rights of another. You can't give the right to drink and drive without potentially robbing a drunk driver's victim of the right to life. You can't give gay people the right to demand the services they want from whom they want them without robbing the service provider of the right to sell their services to whomever they wish to sell them. There is always a price. Some ideals cannot be legislated without sacrificing other ideals.

I mourn for our country. Not because gay marriage is becoming legal, but because of the way that victory is being won and the intentions in the hearts of those who are winning it. Such desire to silence opposition exists everywhere, male and female, gay and straight, religious and secular, but when it is popular and celebrated—when it is in power—there is no one who will escape the price.

Yet, despite my sorrow for the sins of this world, I know in whom I trust. The Book of Mormon is now more than ever before an obvious warning to the righteous, a chance to prepare. We may be called to lay down our lives as so many before us have. But if we keep the love of God in our hearts even as the mobs mock and ridicule, we will have a rock of faith through the trials to come.

“O, ye nations of the earth, how often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not!

“How oft have I called upon you by the mouth of my servants, and by the ministering of angels, and by mine own voice, and by the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms, and by the voice of famines and pestilences of every kind, and by the great sound of a trump, and by the voice of judgment, and by the voice of mercy all the day long, and by the voice of glory and honor and the riches of eternal life, and would have saved you with an everlasting salvation, but ye would not!”
D&C 43:24-25

Damaged Goods

Elizabeth Smart recently commented on the evil of teaching people that their worth is tied up in their sexual inexperience. I agree wholeheartedly with her. Of course, "teh interwebs" has glommed onto her words and twisted them to attack the Church. Which is all really quite boring to me, same story different details. Except for one thing.

I have been a victim, too.

I have written before why I stayed in my marriage. When I was married, I felt like the least wind could shatter me. I was constantly worried about what I said and did. I would hang up with friends and family as soon as my husband was due home because I wanted him to feel my love and attention. I would do activities only after they had been suggested by my spouse, because I wanted to be available for him. I endured two years of torture because I wanted him to be satisfied and pleased. I watched our money drain out like water through a sieve, and felt guilty that I wasted money if I bought something for the house. I went to counseling in hopes that I could be fixed so that the "communication issues" in my marriage could be resolved. But nothing I did made him feel loved. No changes I made helped me communicate with him. Things only got worse the more I tried. Eventually, the marriage deteriorated. I ended it only at the strong promptings and counsel of the Lord, and to protect my ex-husband and my children.

The news can give people a wrong idea about domestic violence. Only the most egregious and horrifying stories hit the news. But once someone has been injured or killed, the entirety of the work of abuse has already been wrought. Abuse isn't first about being hurt. If it was, anyone would get out. But abuse is first about duty, love, obligation, about feeling like if only you worked a little harder, did a little better, things would change. It is an emotional landscape which is carefully terraformed by the abuser. And it works best on loving people who try to be selfless.

For this reason, I keep chewing over the discussion surrounding Elizabeth's comments. You see, I believe that I'm damaged goods, too. It's not something that counseling can help me with. Because it isn't in my mind or reason. It's in my heart and experience. They are a lot harder to convince. Especially after I've tried to convince myself time and time again, only to fail.

A Turbulent Heart

“The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.” —Blaise Pascall

There are times in a person's life when she is presented with opportunities to look at herself and find herself wanting. I am naturally very hard on myself. Growing up, I somehow learned that my worth was directly linked to perfection. It seems that relationships are the greatest of these opportunities.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to live with my sister after her graduation from high school. We had not been the best of friends growing up. She was favored, and I was a truculent and sullen child. We did not have the enmity that many siblings cultivate, but we were jealous of each other for different reasons. I like to think that in the course of living together, and the trouble that we both experienced at the time, we learned to forgive and accept each other and ourselves a little bit more.

When I served my mission, I had close relationships with a few of my companions. One in particular, I think of as a sister. We had very similar outlooks on missionary work, and life in general. We both hated mushrooms (a good basis for any lasting friendship.) Most of all, she gave me confidence in myself and my unique brand of missionary work, which did not mesh well with the general missionary structure. Her influence started my feet down a long path which would eventually lead to me forgiving myself of my faults, no small task.

Chicken Politics

"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.

"They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine."

—Isaiah 29:20-24

I don't like politics. And this recent embarrassment surrounding Chick-fil-A demonstrates exactly why.

In case someone reading this doesn't know, my understanding is that basically the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, was interviewed by Baptist Press, and "came out" in support of preserving one-man-and-one-woman marriage law. Those who support changing the law to include same-sex couples decided to boycott Chick-fil-A. So, those who side with keeping the law as-is decided to turn out en masse to buy chicken sandwiches.

Whereupon, people supporting same-sex marriage have decided to criticize the event, and pull out the usual name-calling of bigotry, hatred, callousness, etc.

And I think that both sides should be embarrassed.

Billboards and the Words of the Prophets

There is a fine line between control and persuasion. Sometimes it’s really hard to see the difference, particularly in ourselves. Particularly when we are passionate about something, or when we want what is best for the people we are trying to control. There is a reason there was a war in heaven, and it’s not because relinquishing control is easy.

Very few people set out to control another person. Few of us sit down and think, “Now, how can I make them do _____?” And yet, we do it all the time.

Recently, I posted something about an Orem billboard, which attracted a great deal of negative attention. I can understand why. I was criticizing the action, and doubting the pure intentions of the people who created it, and it is all centered around the question of how to use the words of Prophets, Apostles, scripture, and Church leaders in our lives.

Publishing Peace

There is an Orem billboard which states, "Why did Spencer W. Kimball say: 'We are a WARLIKE People'?" and then links to a website. It is controversial, because whatever a person believes about war, it is a political agenda billboard which relies solely on quotes from prophets, scripture, and other church leadership to support (and sell) its point.

I have no issue with the supposed purpose of the billboard, which is to encourage LDS members to read the quotes included and think about the issue of supporting war in light of LDS principles. But I have issue with the approach, and I have issue with its actual purpose hidden behind the ostensible one, which is to call people to repentance in support of a libertarian agenda.

There is a fine line between persuasion and manipulation. Appeals to Church authority and quotes are patent manipulation, particularly without background or explanation of the interpretation and how the author believes it fits in with doctrine as a whole, or without plenty of allowance for differing interpretations*. It consists of an attempt to force a person into a situation where they either agree with the presenter's tacit interpretation of the quotes (deduced from context, since the authors never actually state their agenda openly unless you click on external links,) ignoring all opposing peripheral quotes, or they seem to put themselves at odds with "the prophets."

This is deliberate.

How the Internet is Ruining the World

And I'm not even going to talk about spelling and grammar.

More and more people are not only expressing their opinions, but doing so in a harsh, threatening, or violent way. People seem to think less and less of threatening a person's life because they are racist, or against gay marriage, or FOR gay marriage, or baptizing proxy for someone's deceased family members, or for participating in a group of people that also includes someone else with any of those qualities, or any number of opinions that are repugnant to them.

You see, anyone can have opinions nowadays, even about things that don't really affect them. Just the other day, I was solicited to sign a petition for something in an entirely other state. Which I refused because it's none of my business what another state decides to do with their law.

But that's just it, people think everything is everyone's business. Not only do we disrespect privacy, we actually castigate people who refuse ideological exhibitionism.

Why 9/11 Isn't Such a Big Deal

I'll start with the disclaimers. 9/11 is a big deal. Roughly 3000 people died quickly while people watched on camera in a way that was shocking for most of the world. People's husbands, fathers, etc. died when they had every expectation of returning home that evening. That is heart rending, and I respect that.

But I can't help but notice that everyone else seems a great deal more affected by it than I was. So, I've been trying to analyze why my heart and mind is relatively unscathed by 9/11, outside of the obvious reason that no one I know personally was killed.

Bin Laden Has Died

Since it was announced, I have been thinking about posting my feelings about the death of bin Laden. But someone rather beat me to it.

Strange, perhaps, for a military brat to feel this way. But I don't believe that patriotism is best defined as American supremism. Perhaps because I lived a significant portion of my childhood in Germany, I feel strongly that atrocities are not committed by monsters in human form, but are committed by people much like us for reasons that we just as easily might have.

And we would be better served by looking for our mistakes and mourning the need to commit violence than by rejoicing that we are better than our enemies.

This is not a football game. I am ashamed of my fellow citizens.

"And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people. Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

"Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; and also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them;

"And this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity."

I Don't Get Sports . . . or Politics

Perhaps it is a product of moving around so much, but I really don't get sports. I just can't conceive of being so emotionally tangled up in what is, in the end, JUST A GAME. Maybe I don't have enough emotional real estate to spend it on that.

If I or one of my loved ones were playing, I could see getting excited about it. But not when I'm supposed to be rooting for a team which has nothing to do with me except it is nominally residing in the same place I am. (Not that ANY of the team members have any loyalty to that same place, it's all about the scholarship or the money, right?)

Same goes for politics. Do people really think a vote makes much of a difference? Even if I were able to slog through all the detritus that makes up political "commentary" (I prefer the word "kvetching") to sift out whatever grains of Truth Gold might be lurking beneath the manure, I believe that our system is deliberately organized to keep any one person from making all that much of a difference, even the President.

Perhaps especially the President.

And I don't believe that there are more than a handful of politicians out there who really want to do good. But I admit I've become a rather vehement cynic.

Does it really matter which color shirt you're wearing? It's all the same game, right? And the players in either game don't switch sides based on loyalties, believe you me.

9/11 and the Mosque: It's Not About Religion

I know there's a great deal of furor about the Mosque overlooking Ground Zero. I don't get it. I don't get it for a few reasons, some less noble than others.

First, I don't get 9/11. I know that is borderline unpatriotic, but I just don't get why it was so monumental. Maybe it is because as I was growing up, bomb drills were as much a part of the school practice as fire drills. Except, I never experienced a fire at school. Two of the "bomb drills" I went through were real. I had to carry an identification card around with me to get to my house. I've waited in line for over an hour just to get home so the bomb dogs and guys with the oversized dentist mirrors could go through every single car queued up to get on base. I lived as a child knowing that my house could be bombed, that my dad could be killed. That I could be killed in a heartbeat. It wasn't frightening, it was just how life was. 9/11 didn't carry the same punch for me that it seems to carry for most people.

Plus, I was in Germany when the attack occurred. Not only did I not live through the national panic, I experienced the anti-American rallies in the aftermath. I even suggested to my companion once or twice that we take off our missionary name tags so we could travel incognito and not start a riot. I worked hard to improve my accent in German rather than worrying about vocabulary so I could pass as British or Dutch in a pinch. I never had to use that, at least, but I was trained by life as a child how to blend in when necessary and knew it didn't hurt to be careful. I don't think all military kids learn these things, but my dad always encouraged us to immerse ourselves in our resident culture.

Which brings me to second: 9/11 wasn't about religion. It was about politics first and culture second. A good part of my life was spent in a first-world country that is not America. I lived a couple of years on a third-world island. I have seen for myself the range of emotions towards Americans ranging from excited interest through disdain to contempt. I have seen what we Americans do that justifies those sentiments.

If the attacks were about religion, there are many better religious sites that could have been destroyed. But there were no attacks on the Vatican, nothing against Notre Dame. The targets were 100% political and 100% American—a country which theoretically professes no religious alignment.

So why not let them build a Mosque near Ground Zero? Even in a worst-case scenario and the alarmists are right, that it is mockery of our culture and the Christian religion, so what? Why indulge ourselves in the self-centeredness which the rest of the world despises instead of celebrating the parts of America which make us great—our tolerance, our open arms to conflicting ideologies and points of view? We can always reclaim that mosque as a badge of honor, reform it into the gesture of mutuality they claim it is. And if the alarmists are wrong, and it really is intended as a gesture of goodwill, it is churlish and hypocritical of us to refuse it.

Gay Marriage?

Prologue:
I recognize that some are going to want to attack me for these thoughts because they don't agree with them. Before you do so, know that such aggressive behavior has already done more to hurt your cause than help it.

I'm not entirely at peace with either side of the gay marriage debate. What I do know for certain is that I don't want anyone unable to live without physical or undue emotional harm because of their moral decisions unless those moral decisions directly hurt another person's ability to live without physical or undue emotional harm. Hurting someone in any way just because they don't agree with you is inexcusable.

This is rambling, because rambling is exactly how I feel about this issue. I can see good and bad to both sides of the argument. Originally, I supported legalizing gay marriage. But, as I've listened to the debate, the pro-gay-marriage side has made me a lot more hesitant to support it. Their arguments for gay marriage have done more to frighten me about the possible ramifications than the arguments against have convinced me.

"Sexual orientation is not what I do, it's what I am. Either accept what I do, or you are rejecting me, and are my enemy."
For me, sexual orientation IS a choice. I choose as a woman, not only to be attracted to men, but to be attracted to a certain type of man. For me, having sex is even more of a choice. Sometimes it is a more difficult choice than other times, but it is always a choice.

I believe sin is anything that turns us away from God and His purposes. I believe homosexuality is a sin. So is extra-marital sex between a man and a woman. So is incest. So is sex with a minor. The last two are punishable by law, the first two are not. If I suspect the latter two, I'm going to get involved. The former two, I am not. I'm not going to avoid anyone just because they don't agree with me. I am going to avoid people who tell me I either have to agree with them, or I'm their enemy. That gets scary, and reeks of fanaticism.

As much as some people would like to make it so, this is not a simple decision between being homophobic or accepting homosexuality. Homosexuality is ALREADY tolerated by the majority of people, even if they don't like it or agree with it. There are shades of gray between toleration and condoning.

"Marriage is a right. You are denying us our basic rights."
Marriage is not a right. It has nothing to do with basic survival. I don't have the right to marry whomever I want. I have no right to marry a family member or a minor. I don't have the right to marry multiple people. Marriage by law is a privilege. Some think it is a privilege that should be extended to same-sex couples, some do not. Some think it is a privilege that should be revoked entirely.

"If you don't let us marry, it is because you hate us."
Sometimes I don't give my children what they want because I love them, and I think that what they want will hurt them.

I have made many decisions that were unpleasant for both me and the other person because I loved them. I choose to see homosexuals as more than just their homosexuality. I see the person, not just the orientation.

"People should be allowed to do what they want to do. It's not hurting anyone else."
There are some moral decisions that are not compatible with society. That is a given. That is what law is for. Whether or not gay relationships should be sanctioned by society, whether or not each individual believes them to be compatible with living in a society, is the issue. It is not just a matter of allowing gay relationships, it is a matter of believing whether or not it is something that government funds and support should be given to the same way as heterosexual relationships wherein future citizens, children of both parties, could potentially be given life. It's also a matter of convincing the general populace that it really won't hurt anyone else.

Marriage is not an island. It affects law and society in a myriad of ways that can't all be foreseen. Any great societal change should be done with caution. In order to change how marriage is done in society, we should be careful. The burden of proof always rests on those who agitate for change of any kind.

I believe that children benefit by having a good role model of each gender. I don't think that having two parents of the same gender immediately harms a child. But if I had a choice between two sets of equally great parents, one gay and one heterosexual, I think there is an advantage in a child having access to both gender role models. I reject the notion that the male and female genders are the same. I think that biology gives each uniquely different ways of coping with the world that are often strengthened by cultural bias (at times strengthened too much). But I still believe there are differences in general, though they vary from individual to individual. I believe they are differences that can complement each other as a parental unit seeks to teach a child ways to cope with the world.

"This is no different from segregation."
The civil rights movement came after a majority had already voted in favor of emancipation, after a war was fought over it. Some people were disobeying law that had already been decided by the majority and the outcome of the war. So far, the majority has decided against (not for) gay marriage, so far, the war is not yet won by either side. At this time, the analogy is not a good one.

Once the legislative body creates a law requiring the extension of marriage to gay couples, until gays are forcefully kept from drinking at certain water fountains, patronizing certain public establishments and sitting in certain seats, the analogy does not hold up. If that does happen, there should certainly be steps taken to punish those who instigate it. That is unequivocal in my mind.

"You can't use your religion to vote."
You have no right to tell me what can and cannot factor into my voting decisions. I have every right to let my religion affect my votes, just as you have a right to let your sexuality affect yours. More than anything, this argument irritates me the most and makes me want to vote against merely to prove I can. It is my vote for a reason, not yours.

Epilogue:
All of these rantings make me nervous that those who want to marry are not truly trying to help gays or society in general so much as they are wanting to win. It feels like they think that all who disagree with them are closed-minded bigots, and they just want to crack their heads open both figuratively and literally. Their goal seems to primarily be to force others to agree with them, not to win something tangible for themselves. It is almost like the marriage itself has become a side note.

And an actual quote:
"We hope you’ll change. You might not, but we hope you and the church will. This is why we insist on calling your stance homophobic and bigoted, so that you don’t feel comfortable about your positions."
Which sums up perfectly what I mean by this post. This openly admits an attempt to manipulate through shame, to control another person's behavior. While I understand the same can be said in the other direction, that still makes me suspect the motives. I don't call you names, please try to extend the same courtesy to those who are genuinely trying to understand.

I know a lot of people have been hurt because of things that other people have done to them, and want to lash out. Understandable, but not reassuring. Not calculated to persuade me to change my mind back to what it was.

I hurt most of all for those who are caught up in the crossfire: those who are truly wanting to follow God's will, but struggle with feeling inadequate or intrinsically deficient. I know how that feels, and I'd not wish it on anyone, no matter why you feel that way. I wish we could all have a good cry on each others' shoulders.

So I've saved for last what I think is the most important part of this whole debate. Know that even though I'm confused and conflicted about the various points, and I definitely don't understand all the ins and outs and possible ramifications of one decision or the other, even though I most definitely do not agree with certain tactics and attitudes on both sides of the fence, there is One who knows and understands it all. It doesn't matter who you are, He understands you and loves you. He wants your eternal joy, not just your immediate happiness. It doesn't matter if I ever fully understand how you are feeling, because He does.

And that is all that really matters, in the end.

Michelle Obama and the Price of a Loss of Religion

As I listened to NPR this morning, waiting for the gym to open, I heard an interesting opinion on Michelle Obama. (I tried to find a link, but I don't think it is yet posted. If anyone knows where it is, please let me know.) The woman speaking, Rachel, opined that the First Lady incumbent had a powerful image that was being made "more comfortable" for the American people. She claimed that America was uncomfortable with powerful women, and that is why Michelle Obama was focusing on work/life balance for women, military wives and other similar agendas. Claiming she was dumbed down for the American people to swallow her better, she said that Michelle was going to be the same First Lady we've had in the past. Her basis for this was that there was a lot of hype about Senator Obama and his children adjusting to the change, but little was said about Michelle having to "give up her identity" and her own paycheck and the adjustment necessary for that.

The discussion got me thinking about the view of motherhood. It was obvious from the discussion that Michelle was losing something by going from a powerful lawyer to a mom and First Lady. It was clear that the speaker considered a woman's value to be tied up in what she did and in having an identity independent from her husband. It is this sort of attitude I believe was criticized when the First Presidency issued the Proclamation on the Family.

Society has increasingly begun to view marriage and family as a mix between a burden and a luxury. Those who marry do so with a feeling of what they will get out of the arrangement. If you listen to the Proposition 8 riots and rhetoric, to much of the feminist rhetoric, and even to television and radio, you will hear marriage almost exclusively discussed in terms of benefits to individuals. In divorces, one spouse didn't "meet the needs" of the other, a couple "fell out of love" or tried to control each other. In discussing gay marriage, it is seen almost exclusively as a right with government benefits.

All of these viewpoints are poisonous. Marriage is not a contract with benefits on either side; it is a commitment. When two people marry, they commit to each other and to their future children. They dedicate all of their resources and time to the betterment of that new family unit. A person agrees to put the welfare of that tiny unit of society above their own individual welfare. It is the arrangement which best allows us to become like Christ, because we mimic His actions when He put the welfare of the world above His own.

Although many argue that atheism—a loss of belief in God—does nothing to remove morality—an understanding of the need to care and provide for another's needs—I think the root of all these problems in society is a loss of belief in God. For this purpose, it does not matter which belief in God you have as long as your belief includes a need to submit the self. Religions which focus on self-attainment or self-perfection miss the mark. I want to note here that Mormonism in practice often falls into this category, focusing far too much on self-purification and too little on selflessness. Our hands are not clean of this sin.

Marriage is not a social arrangement to benefit the self, it is a social arrangement to better the whole. Religion teaches this concept in a way that simple morality cannot. The Christian religion, since that is the one I know best, especially demonstrates this. If God, the greatest of all beings, was willing to lay down His life for an imperfect world, we ought to be able to lay down our lives, whether by living them or by losing them, for our imperfect spouses. I, for one, admire Michelle Obama for being willing to dedicate herself to her marriage and to her husband's glory, just as I admire husbands willing to work in a drudgery job every day to provide for their family, or vice versa. Marriage is a series of submissions from both sides of the equation. That is what the Proclamation on the Family has to teach us. That is what Christ taught us with His life. That is the value of religion and the price we all pay when it is mocked and trampled.

Presidential Playground Politics

This is it: I am utterly disgusted with the entire presidential campaign. I expect some childish antics on the part of whichever nominees are elected. I expect it. Yet, they always amaze me with the depths of depravity they are willing to wallow in. Slinging muddy sandbox sand back and forth and crying loudly, "I'MRIGHTI'MRIGHTLISTENTOMEMOMMYI'MRIGHT," their so-called policies and sycophantic promises are deafened only by their immaturity. They are drowning in the things people want to hear and are not really looking outside the box. They are not really caring. I was under the impression from my U.S. History and Politics classes that you had to be 35 to run for president, but I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of my information. It sickens me that my two-year-old daughter displays more maturity when I take her favorite cup away than either Obama or McCain show in their ostensibly adult politics.

What makes it worse is that the American public can be compared to parents standing nearby, egging their children on. We are so enamored with drama, that we encourage it in our politicians. I am certain that if the American public (and especially the media) showed the least bit of maturity, the politicians would not throw it out the window along with their sense. It is embarrassing to the nth degree. I want to internationally hide my face in shame. Perhaps I shall start wearing a burkha so I won't be recognized. There is little to no chance that our "exalted country" would elect a reasonable, tough but kind person even should one run for office.

I was joking about writing Mitt Romney in for president. It's not that I entirely agree with him, but that I could live with him in the White House, and I cannot stand either of the presidential candidates with one iota of tolerance. I think I'm going to change my write-in vote to my friend's cat, Mo, however. "Mo" is short for "Mo Evil Cat Genius" and I imagine he would do a better job of president than any human interested in the job. He has no chance of winning, as he reaches neither the age nor species requirement, but my vote for him would make my opinions of the presidential candidates perfectly clear (not that it would make a difference). His platform is "Moderation, Sense, and a Litterbox in Every Home." I prefer a candidate who is openly trying to take over the world and subvert the masses.

On a note of complete seriousness and sobriety, however, I do believe that there is no way to morally vote in this election. I feel that if everyone took off their colored shirts, dropped their pet issues for just one moment and really looked at the sorry situation American politics is in, they would leave their shirts in the mud and depart far wiser people. The system is broken, folks. I know it sounds pessimistic, but I believe it is only a matter of time before the consequences show. We will pay for our choices. Of that, I have no doubt.

What is Tolerance?

This is an absolutely amazing discussion on political correctness and tolerance. I am intrigued and slightly jealous: I wish I had written it! Please read and comment there.

Voting for the Kingmen

In reading the latest Gospel Doctrine lessons, I feel that I better understand how to vote and how to discern what to vote for. I think that many LDS members would vote differently, if they shone the light of the "war chapters" in Alma on current matters. Some interesting contrasts and parallels are drawn between the "good guys" (the freemen) and the "bad guys" (the kingmen) in these chapters.

Kingmen:	Freemen:	Common:
Change the law to support a king	Maintain a government which protects religious freedoms	Both believe they are maintaining the right to govern
Refuse to defend country	Willing to defend country, but take no pleasure in it	Both profess to desire peace
Seek for power and authority	Enforce defense of country only when granted by the voice of the people.	Willing to take up arms to fight for what they wanted
Contentious, proud, stubborn	Courageous, sober, kept commandments of God	Both believe they are in the right

These points are found from Alma 51 through the end of the book of Alma. There are other comparisons, but these are the thrust of my thoughts at the moment. I think when we look at who or what to vote for, we should keep these things in mind. Particularly, I find Ammoron's epistle in Alma 54 intriguing. He takes a stand of disingenuous innocence, claiming to be only defending his rights. Yet Moroni, knowing Ammoron, knows that he is not really in it to defend his rights, but to attack the Nephites in a bid for power. I feel there are political conflicts today where some may claim innocence, claim that they are only seeking for their own rights. Although some of those down the line may truly believe in the righteousness of their stance, those who began it and are heading it are fully cognizant of their fraud. They know they only desire power at the cost of the rights of others. It is up to us to pray for discernment: to see the cause which is defended by those truly defending those rights, liberties and freedoms which lead to eternal happiness and to God.

Pessimistic as I am, I believe there are few real defenders of righteousness in politics today. I have had the opportunity to speak face-to-face with a few who do. I wish more political candidates would take the time to cease posturing in front of the masses, and sit down in smaller groups to speak as frankly and honestly as they can. Some of those few I have spoken to have my voting loyalty, because I feel they will do their best to fight for the right causes when I cannot even know those causes are on the table, no matter what color party shirt they happen to wear.